( 1 ) REGARDS the other applicants also it is contended that admittedly gaming was not going on at the time of the raid and that therefore the other applicants cannot be held to be guilty. For a conviction under sec. 5 of the Act it is not necessary that the person should be actually found gaming. A person who is present in a house for the purpose of gaming would be guilty under sec. 5 even though none may be actually gaming at the time of the raid. In view of the presumption under sec. 7 however a person found in the house room or place in question is presumed unless the contrary is proved to be present therein for the purpose of gaming although no gaming was actually seen at the time of the said. Sec. 7 even makes it clear that the presumption can be drawn although gaming may not be actually seen. There is therefore no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants. The revision application is therefore dismissed. K. T. DESAI C. J. This appeal raises important questions relating to The construction of some of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 a piece of legislation which is not noted for artistic or accurate draftsmanship. The appellant in this case filed a petition in the Court of the District Judge Halar for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent. On 31/01/1957 the said petition was dismissed. From the order of dismissal an appeal was filed in the High Court That appeal was dismissed. On 11/04/1957 the respondent made an application purporting to do so under the provisions contained in section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for permanent alimony. That application was heard by the learned District Judge Halar who passed an order awarding a sum of Rs. 40/per month as and by way of permanent alimony to the respondent from the date of the application. the appellant has filed this appeal from that order.

( 2 ) MR. Chhaya the learned advocate for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of this appeal. He contends that no appeal lies against the order made as aforesaid on the application of the respondent. The provisions relating to appeals are to be found in section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 That section runs as under :all decree and orders made by the court in any proceeding under this Act shall be enforced in like manner as the decrees and orders of the court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction are enforced and may be appealed from under any law for the time being in force.

( 3 ) MR. Chhaya contends that the order granting Rs. 40/per month by way of permanent alimony is an order within the meaning of this section. He urges that an appeal can lie from such order only if such appeal is provided under any law for the time being in force. According to his submission the law referred to in this connection is the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 He says that the provisions of the Code relating to appeals are to be found in sections 96 and 104 and Order 43 rule 1. Sec. 96 provides for appeals from original decrees. Section 104 and Order 43 Rule 1 provide for appeals from orders. He argues that the provisions of section 104 and Order 43 rule 1 are inapplicable to the order in question passed by the District Judge. Halar. Section 104 in terms provides that an appeal shall lie from the orders therein mentioned and that save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of the Code or by any law for the time being in force from no other orders. An order granting permanent alimony is not one of the orders specified in section 104. Order 43 rule 1 provides for an appeal from the orders therein mentioned. An order awarding permanent alimony is not one of the orders mentioned in Order 43 He relied upon the definition of the term decree given in the Civil Procedure Code in order to show that the order in question does not amount to a decree. Section 2 sub-section (2) provides that unless there is anything repugnant in